北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2018, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (5): 9-17.DOI: 10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2018.0244

• 本期特约专家稿件 • 上一篇    下一篇

保护规范理论在举报投诉人原告资格中的适用

赵宏   

  1. 中国政法大学 法学院, 北京 100088
  • 收稿日期:2018-08-20 出版日期:2018-09-25 发布日期:2018-10-08
  • 作者简介:赵宏(1977-),女,甘肃金昌人,甘肃政法学院文翰学者特聘教授,博士,研究方向为行政法学.

Application of Protection Standard Theory to the Qualification of Complainants

ZHAO Hong   

  1. School of Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China
  • Received:2018-08-20 Online:2018-09-25 Published:2018-10-08

摘要:

举报投诉人的原告资格判定是近期中国行政审判实务中的热点问题。新司法解释尝试通过区分私益举报人和公益举报人来划定原告资格的有无。但从主观公权和保护规范理论出发,公民并不拥有普遍的、概括的要求行政执行法律的请求权,"举报权条款"也并未赋予举报投诉人可要求行政机关在个案中予以介入并作出具体处理的主观公权。因此不仅为公益而举报的举报人不具备原告资格,即使是为了个人利益维护而举报投诉的举报人,也并不必然具备原告资格。举报人欲通过诉讼维护的"私益"是否属于主观公权,在保护规范理论的视角下,需诉诸行政机关作出举报处理行为所依据的实体法规范,并通过对规范是否纯为或兼为保护举报人的某项私益而予以判定。实践中,举报投诉人又可大致区分为公平竞争权人、民事侵权行为中的消费者、警察行政中的被侵害人、相邻权人、政府信息公开的申请人等类型,他们欲维护的私益是否属于主观公权也因此需要借助保护规范理论分别予以讨论。

关键词: 举报投诉人, 保护规范理论, 主观公权, 资格判定, 原告

Abstract:

The plaintiff qualification of the complainant is a hot topic in the recent administrative trial practice in China. The new judicial interpretation attempts to delineate the qualifications of plaintiff by distinguishing the complainant for private interest and public interest. However, from the perspective of the theory of subjective public rights and protection norms, citizens do not have the generalized right to request administrative enforcement of the law. The right to report clause does not give the complainer the subjective public right to apply the administrative organ to intervene in the concrete case and make specific treatment. Therefore, not only the complainants for the public good have no plaintiff qualifications, but even the complainants for the personal interests do not necessarily have plaintiff qualifications. From the perspective of the protection norm theory whether the "private interest" that the complainants want to defend belongs to the plaintiff qualification of the complainant is a hot topic in the recent administrative trial practice in China. The new judicial interpretation attempts to delineate the qualifications of plaintiff by distinguishing the complainant for private interest and public interest. However, from the perspective of the theory of subjective public rights and protection norms, citizens do not have the generalized right to request administrative enforcement of the law. The right to report clause does not give the complainer the subjective public right to apply the administrative organ to intervene in the concrete case and make specific treatment. Therefore, not only the complainants for the public good have no plaintiff qualifications, but even the complainants for the personal interests do not necessarily have plaintiff qualifications. From the perspective of the protection norm theory whether the "private interest" that the complainants want to defend belongs to the subjective public right or not, needs to resort to the law norms on which the administrative organ makes the concrete act, and to judge whether the norm is purely or simultaneously for the protection of a private interest of the complainants.

Key words: complainant, protection norm theory, subjective rights, qualification judgement, plaintiff

中图分类号: